Further to my previous post on this article, the post on Euangelion on creation, and thinking about this, occurs to me that in Gen 1. Gd sets out what creation is, in his terms: that is, he's the author, he knows what he did and what is important to inform our thinking and understanding about what he did; giving us a basis for informed (a) covenant life, (b) action in the creation, as its stewards, and (c) as part of (a) who we are before Gd and in creation.
If someone wants to use other terms, one has to question their basis in knowledge (true justified knowledge, and not the knowledge that seems to pop out of our cultural framework), their effect on our understanding of Gd and us (points a-c above) and their effect on who Gd is contra his self-representation. So it's man saying that Gd is not self-representing as creator in his terms, but we prefer out terms to define who Gd is as creator and we as creatures. Hidebound arrogance, to my mind, and philosophically and theologically unsound, undoing the stream of history that describes Gd's salvific basis, intent and achievement.
